Pope reaffirms opposition to gay marriage

[davidinalameda]

go figure

http://www.advocate.com/new_news.asp?ID=10844&sd=12/29/03

Pope John Paul II pressed his campaign against gay unions Sunday, calling for greater defense of the institution of marriage as a union between a man and a woman and saying that a "misunderstood sense of rights" is altering it. The pope's comments came amid a Vatican campaign to crack down on same-sex unions, which have won legal protections in recent months following landmark court decisions in Canada, Massachusetts, and elsewhere granting increased rights to gay and lesbian couples. In his weekly Sunday comments in St. Peter's Square, John Paul said marriage--which the Vatican defines as a sacred union between a man and a woman--is a "human and divine" gift that should be defended by society. "In our times, a misunderstood sense of rights has sometimes disturbed the nature of the family institution and conjugal bond itself," he said. "It is necessary that at every level, the efforts of those who believe in the importance of the family based on matrimony unite."

[sweetheart]

1. The pope is dead

That is why his corpse is so conservative. ;)

He is a dumbshit asshole for his positions on birth control, AIDS and sexuality... good thing he's dead... or he might be dangerous.

[truthspeaker]

2. watch out

You'll be accused of "attacking Catholics" and "demonizing Christianity" for making that statement.

(But I agree with you. And you forgot to mention he's a pimp.)

[Blue_Chill]

5. No that would be giving that post more credit then it deserves

It was nothing more then a immature attack and you know this.

[truthspeaker]

15. telling the truth is an immature attack?

[Blue_Chill]

17. Subjective immaturely phrased explosion of emotion

shouldn't be confused with truth.

[truthspeaker]

19. "He is a dumbshit asshole for his positions on birth control, AIDS and

..sexuality"

Seems like a reasoned opinion to me! I certainly agree with it.

[Blue_Chill]

24. If that is what passes for reasoned opinions in your mind

then I will take note of it and adjust my tone in future debates I we will no doubt engage in together. I was under the impression this forum was for adults and frightenly mature young people.

[sweetheart]

35. pssstt..

.. its offended a catholic, and some's got a veiled retort of labelling comments "immaturity".

Immature is fucking over the lives of millions of people with bad advise... more than immature rather is is bordering on criminal... the pope deserves less respect than a fox in the hen house.

... people can't hack direct comments because he wears fancy robes and runs a network of colourful franchises. Dead people do less damage.

[sweetheart]

27. is immaturity to call a spade a spade?

You're off base there dude. The pope has been making a global mess and is indirectly responsible for some AIDS cases, overpopulation and unwanted children in especially poor nations and teenage prenancys (indirect misogyny.)

You give me guff for ripping him... says more about someone who would defend such an asswipe.

My post was direct, and used marketing spin to tell a rather indirect, but truth... he might as well be dead for all the good he's done.

[Blue_Chill]

36. No it's immature to lash out and name call like a teenager

You're off base there dude.

No "dude" you are off base here.


The pope has been making a global mess and is indirectly responsible for some AIDS cases, overpopulation and unwanted children in especially poor nations and teenage prenancys (indirect misogyny.)

I would agree with you if the Pope was preaching "sex is good fun, have at it!" while saying no to protection. However he isn't doing that is he, he is telling people not to engage in sexual activity like bunny rabbits and warning them that such behavior carries horrible consequences. It is his belief that putting faith in "safe sex" only leads to more situations that are the exact opposite.

Also you blame the pope for unwanted children in poor nations. I find it interesting that a liberal would blame the actual act of having a child, instead of the politicians that rob their own people blind and create such conditions to begin with. Children are not as "unwanted" as you may think by the way, in fact they are key to the future of these hellish areas because with a little help they are going to schools and giving these nations a far more educated population then they had prior.


You give me guff for ripping him... says more about someone who would defend such an asswipe.

Perhaps I wouldn't give you such "guff" if you picked an issue and stated your case. Instead you decided the proper course of action when discussing a man that many people, many DEMOCRATS, hold in high regard was to use a string of profanities.


My post was direct, and used marketing spin to tell a rather indirect, but truth... he might as well be dead for all the good he's done.

A yes, we all know how it takes so much wit and intelligence to insult a man and then wish him dead. If that were the mark of intelligent writing then Ann Coulter would be considered a genius.

[sweetheart]

41. defending illusory propaganda positions

So i've insulted someone by "name calling". He has insulted someone by helping them catch AIDS.... we're even.

Just 'cuz he keeps his positions cloaqued in the most conservative of language does not prevent the fact that avoidable deaths will happen this year due to said jerkoff's advise on condom's and birth control..

Its too bad people hold him in high regard. He's been up to no good, and if those folks can't see that, they are blind... Advising people not to use birth control methods when AIDS is rampant is worse than calling him a jackoff asswipe.

I din't say i wished him dead... you're extrapolation.

It is truth to call him a bad man for his actions, and to add emphasis for all those who are dying of AIDs thanks to his stupidity... to defend that as some sort of attempt to create a safe democrat-no truth zone is not my objective, and it comes down to our differences on what DU is for... for me... direct truth... as you say, for yourself it is to cloaque opinions in such a way that bad men get good spin.... some would call that moderate... i don't..

We disagree about the right to indict harshly as a path to truth... yet there is no such thing as a moderate indictment of wrong behavior.

Focus your immature label on your own inability to judge just action that kills 1000's of people.... you're indirectly defending his behiviour... and that is immature if you wish to call the label.

[Blue_Chill]

45. subjective accusations and anger pollute your posts

Advising people not to use birth control methods when AIDS is rampant is worse than calling him a jackoff asswipe.

He is advising them not to depend on the FALSE security of "safe sex" in a enviroment where anyone with a level head would avoid casual sexual contact of any kind.

Aids is being spread thru Africa because of a male dominated culture of promiscuity. Not because they lack a proper supply of Trojans, that at best would only slow the spread. Providing a already overly promiscuous society with a false sense of security could expedite a avoidable destruction. They need to face the ugly truth of whats happening and how they must change to stop it.

[sweetheart]

73. The pope is a evil represser of women

He is the most influential maker of patriarchal policy repressing women and women's rights for billions of people. He is an asshole, pure and simple. Your liberalism sinks. I have a right to be angry at a scumbag who has abused his position as the head of a church to repress women, gays, and who offers a banal message on abstinance to a world where AIDS is prolific.

You are supporting patriarchy and the repression of women by giving him any credence at all.

Its not subjective what he has done to women. His evil church of men is no friend to western liberalism, and never was.

Perhaps in your next life as a teenage pregnant woman in ireland, you will wonder why god hates you... and its not god, rather a stupid church leader.

[Blue_Chill]

85. That last thing didn't work so now we move on to womens lib eh?

He is the most influential maker of patriarchal policy repressing women and women's rights for billions of people.

Explain yourself instead of making hit and run statements like the one I've taken the time to quote above. You make a claim but you fail, as you have through out this entire thread, to back up your accusations with anything specific. The devil is in the details my friend and your tactic of avoiding them isn't going to cut it.


He is an asshole, pure and simple. Your liberalism sinks.

Ad Hominem attacks continue.


I have a right to be angry at a scumbag who has abused his position as the head of a church to repress women, gays, and who offers a banal message on abstinance to a world where AIDS is prolific.

Once again you fail to be specific on the "repress women" charge. Although you did add that he "abused his position" to do so. That implies he has done something to women that is new to the church, so please tell me what that would actually be.

Being that I wish to avoid a misunderstanding I will say that I do not agree with the current Church positions on gay marriage, the role of women in church, and to an extent birth control/sex. However I'm not going to behave as a child because I understand the pope is from a different generation, thus his views are not the same as mine.


You are supporting patriarchy and the repression of women by giving him any credence at all.

The only people who claim nuns are repressed are non catholics who don't happen to know any nuns well enough to ask them. Should they be admitted to leadership positions? Of course they should but the church changes more slowly then the surrounding world, any observer of history would know that. You can rage all you wish but that is the churches way and the women associated with it are there by choice and are vey much appreciated.



His evil church of men is no friend to western liberalism, and never was.

You really should bother to know the good and bad elements of the church before you slam it like you have in this thread. Your above claim is amazingly ignorant.


Perhaps in your next life as a teenage pregnant woman in ireland, you will wonder why god hates you... and its not god, rather a stupid church leader.

If so I would pray that I am born yet again with the ability to distinguish my own choices and opinions from those of the church. Hopefully I will yet again be blessed with the ability to undestand that all institutions of man are flawed and that everything they say is not to be taken as the word of god.

Unlike some I don't need everyone to tell me I'm good, I'm great, and that everything I do they support. I prefer institutions that don't follow pop culture trends and stick to their guns providing me with a a stable base from which I can rely on when I need it.

[sweetheart]

89. Ok explained

The pope is purported to be the spokesperson for "god" in a church that dominates the religious views of some countries: ireland, poland, much of south america, phillipines, etc...etc...

In those places, the equality of women is undermined. Though the church is not official, it might as well be given the power of the pulpit and such doctrinisms as this thread originated with.

By barring women from the priesthood, the church itself is a repressive organization against matriarchy and equality for women.

I also still think so about AIDS and birth control, and these arguments are also viable, but i decided, mid-chat to focus on the core issue the papal doctrine has brought us... continued misogyny.

Given this multinational power to influence the station of women, by the rather core example of their religion calling them unclean and unequal, sinful corruptors of God's eden.... and all the theological undertones that the church in its sin-absolution role theoretically brings...

Overpopulation, AIDS, birth control, womens equality are major major issues, and the papal advise has been damaging across the board.

I reserve the right to speak as direct interpreter of God myself and i'm calling the pope an asshole for damaging people and screwing over his flock.

It comes down to fear of women, fear of sexuality and fear of femininity, which is why i center on the misogyny issue that is endemic to this church of sexual perverts. It is the biggest most damaging cult in the western world, given its inertia mass and what it has achieved for the nations that contain majority catholic populations.

Your defense is more, IMO, tuned towards a secular organization, like the boy scouts.... whereas, the role of esoteric power claimed by the catholic church and its leader is one that is a very touchy issue. He must carry, as an embodied incarnation enclosing "god's" will the absolute goodwill and well intention towards all beings, helping all sentient beings attain enligthenment, as is the role of leaders of other organizations... yet instead, the church with him in charge has gone against all things feminine. The crime is a very serious one, that he will answer for when he meets his god.

He could, were he a real man of god, use his church for tremendous good, embracing all peoples and lifestyles openly and helping all those people have better lives (like jesus himself did). The church could use its wealth to end AIDS, child pregnancy and all sorts of things... and instead, the immature bunch of teenagers is hung up about sex.

[LibertyBe11e]

81. He is advising them not to depend on the FALSE security of "safe sex"

uhhh... no he isn't "advising" anyone. He is FORBIDDING ANY SORT OF BIRTH CONTROL--even for married couples! and claims to be INFALLIBLE as the pope. Further, through his church here in America, he is trying to inflict his medieval views over here. Well sorry if I'm being immature here, but I think he's full o'crap, and so is anyone who buys into that crapola.

[Blue_Chill]

84. A pope’s private theological opinions are not infallible

I consider his opinions on these issues to fall under this category. You should read up on Papal Infallibility, it's not a "Pope is always right" rule.

[truthspeaker]

91. neither are his public theological opinions

No man is infallible. To believe otherwise is lunacy.

[kysrsoze]

40. Exactly - you don't see the Vatican selling any of its priceless...

artwork and manuscripts to feed all those little Catholic children throughout the world. The Vatican also conveniently brushed off the whole issue of priests molesting children. Seriously, there is so much B.S. going on in the Vatican, very little coming out of it is of any use to Catholics or anyone else.

I don't think the world needs an 86 year-old man of failing health and questionable frame of mind to interpret God's will, though I do have to give him credit for denouncing the Iraq war. Of course, how much of this is even the decision of the Pope anymore? I'm sure there are lots of people behind the scenes making decisions - many of which I disagree with.

[Blue_Chill]

46. Thanks for the bad advice

The vatican holds onto it's artwork because it is was created mostly for them by Catholics, it is their very culture they refuse to rid themselves of. As for the churches vast wealth, they hold onto much of it to protect the church. Had they instead used the poor judgement you demand of them this latest crisis would have bankrupted them and the church would have in danger of collapse.

I'm sorry but I will not pass judgement on the church for being responsible with money and keeping treasured pieces of their own history.

[kysrsoze]

49. Again, why shouldn't that 'vast wealth' be used for the good of

all those catholic families living in poverty. The Catholic Church doesn't need to hold on to every last bit of that artwork to protect its culture. Isn't it the people in the Church who represent the true culture, rather than mere possessions?

Why not sell some of it to museums and historical societies which can proudly display these treasures for everyone to see? Of course, we all know the Catholic Church will do what's good for the Catholic Church.

[Blue_Chill]

50. More bad advice

1- No one wants the church to sell off it's own culture. That would cheapen the entire institution. These are not mere possessions, these are works created by catholics for the church.

2- And once again if the church runs off and empties it's accounts then a time of crisis would destroy the entire church. Much like it is currently going through difficult economic times, it wouldn't survive such events if it spent every dime.

You act as if the church does nothing for the poor. ha!

[Chovexani]

70. Hoarding wealth for its own sake is antithetical to Jesus' message.

I bet that, right now, some padre down in the Vatican library is trying to figure out how to clone camels small enough to fit through the eye of a needle.

[Blue_Chill]

86. So you think allowing the church to fall and fail so many

is more Christ-like?

Tell me what faith do you follow that you think this way. I would wager it is so small that no significant group relies on it for anything more then amusement or companionship.

[XanaDUer]

7. How is the Pope a pimp?

Eom.

[truthspeaker]

13. For having an official policy of relocating child-raping priests

to other parishes and of covering up their abuse.

[XanaDUer]

23. There is no official policy of that

and pedophilia does happen in all religions.

Please find any official canon legal documents stating that offical policy.

[truthspeaker]

28. right here:

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/08/07/1060145805850.html

"A confidential Vatican document drafted more than 40 years ago laid down a policy demanding secrecy in cases of sex abuse by priests, CBS News has reported.

The policy, written in 1962 by Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani, said that anyone who spoke out about sexual abuse could be expelled from the church, the report said.

...

Church records indicate that the document was the basis of the church's sex abuse policy, until US bishops drafted a new policy last year."

[goddess40]

53. Let's leave at "his opinion is dead" in this country

The catholics only trot out his opinion when it suits their needs.
(I grew up in a catholic household, never quite took with me, I thought first communion was a joke)
Most religions are dictatorships, members don't get a vote. As in the bishop in my state just let the catholic politicians know that if they didn't vote the way the church dictated they couldn't recieve communion.

[JesusNoRepublican]

55. Which state and which bishop did that?

Goddess40,
Could you give us more specifics and a source if possible as to which bishops are forcing Catholic office holders to tow their line??? This is very important!

[Blue_Chill]

3. It saddens me to see the man taking such outdated positions

Hopefully the church will adopt more modern stances in the future.

[arwalden]

65. A Very Hopeful Sentiment... Thanks BlueChill

But judging on how long it took them to finally admit that Copernicus and Gallileo were right and that the Earth is INDEED a sphere that orbits the sun... well... at least they are making progress, even if it is 500 years late.

But, alas... when it comes to equal treatment of Queers, I don't think I'll be alive to witness such an event. Sigh.

-- Allen

[Padraig18]

4. Does a bear sh*t in the woods?

I'd have fainted dead away, if he had done anything else, frankly.:P

[FrancoUnamerican]

6. yeah

What happened to Christianity being about tolerance, and acceptance, I must have missed the part in the bible where Christ preached hatred towards gays, and intolerance.

Wow, I'm glad i'm an atheist

[Q3JR4]

Me too.

:bounce: :toast: :bounce:

[FDRrocks]

78. Me three,

[Cannikin]

10. I dont understand...

Is it just me or are conservative 'christians' the most war-mongering, hate filled people ever? And then they accuse Muslims of the same behavior.

[XanaDUer]

14. The pope was opposed to the Iraq war...

eom.

[truthspeaker]

16. yes but that doesn't make him special

he says some things I agree with and many things I don't. He's not exempt from criticism because of his position of authority.

[Blue_Chill]

18. Criticism? I see very little of that.

I mostly see silly attacks such as "he is a pimp" rather then intelligently worded criticism.

[truthspeaker]

20. thousands of abuse victims don't think it's silly

[Blue_Chill]

26. If you want to be taken seriously how about providing

some evidence that the pope himself knew about specific examples of child abuse and made the decision himself to have them transferred. From what I saw that pope called his misbehaving cardinals to Rome with zero notice (not common practice) and ordered them to fix this problem.

I have seen some documents that vaguely show the pope may have known but I have yet to see any hard evidence that shows he knew any specifics. This all seems to be assumed by those that don't particularly like the church or the pope.

[truthspeaker]

30. see above for evidence

[Blue_Chill]

34. yes I have seen that I also read a response to it, did you?

The CBS report claimed:


The confidential Vatican document, obtained by CBS News, lays out a church policy that calls for absolute secrecy when it comes to sexual abuse by priests-- anyone who speaks out could be thrown out of the church.


That is inaccurate.


While it is true that the Vatican document threatens excommunication for anyone who discloses the proceedings of an ecclesiastical trial for "solicitation," it does not bar the priest's accuser from making separate charges about the priest's sexual misconduct. In fact the document makes it clear that during the canonical trial, the accuser should not be questioned about any sexual activity that he may have undertaken with the priest; the accuser is to be questioned solely about what occurred within the confessional.


Thus, someone who was sexually abused by a priest would be free, under the 1962 Vatican policy, to bring criminal charges against that priest for his sexual conduct, while simultaneously charging the priest with "solicitation" in an ecclesiastical court.


In fact, the Instruction from Cardinal Ottaviani stresses (in section 18) that every Catholic has a solemn duty to bring canon-law charges against a priest who attempts to solicit sex through the confessional. The importance of that obligation is underlined by the fact that a Catholic who fails to report solicitation is subject to excommunication. Moreover, the penitent remains under this solemn obligation to report solicitation even if the priest has already confessed his crime.


The document on which CBS based its distorted story is a densely worded 24-page document, couched in the technical idiom of canon law, and accompanied by a 36-page Appendix that provides the formulas to be used in an ecclesiastical trial. No careful reader could fail to recognize that this was a specialized document, providing a set of procedures for a particular ecclesiastical offense.


Why, then, did CBS News draw a broad general conclusion from a tightly focused legal document?


Why did the network fail to distinguish between the ecclesiastical crime of solicitation and the public offense of pedophilia?


The questions are worth pondering.

source: http://www.catholiccitizens.org/press/contentview.asp?c=7582

[LeahMira]

33. It's difficult to believe...

... that the Pope didn't know what was going on given that these kinds of things have been going on in the Catholic church for centuries and that the Catholic problem with priest-molesters is not confined to priest-molesters in the U.S. only. Did the man live in a bubble all his life?

[Blue_Chill]

39. Not at all, it's a common flaw in man made institutions

Men crave power, powerful men crave more power. In a institution like the Vatican one does not want to be the bishop or the cardinal interviewed by the local news about a sex scandal in involving the church. It's bad for your career, because while you help the church in the long run you also tie yourself to the bad news.

[Cannikin]

51. Thousands of abuse victims probably hate him

for covering up the scandle for so long...

[XanaDUer]

25. No one said he was exempt

the phrase "war-mongering" was used. It is false.

[truthspeaker]

32. he was speaking of conservative Christians in general

Opposition to war has been a consistent position of this pope, and that sets him apart from many past popes but also from many conservative protestants, so I'll give him that.

Also, when the Soviet bloc was falling he pointed out that, with communism falling, we need to concentrate on remedying the evils and hardships that come with capitalism. You didn't hear that from conservative protestants.

[Bush loves Jiang]

29. Big freeping deal...

So was Belorussian leader Alexander Lukashenka, the most Stalinistic leader in Eastern Europe since Brezhnev.

[Breezy du Nord]

59. It says in the bible homosexuality is a sin

So they have a basis for being homphobic. That doesn't mean it's right, of course. That's why I'm an atheist too.

[TrogL]

68. It doesn't say any such thing

It says it's in violation of Mosaic ritual law.

http://members.shaw.ca/trogl/bibquote.html

[mrgorth]

8. He can think whatever he wants

my problem is his wanting secular states to adopt his beliefs.

[JesusNoRepublican]

12. That's what popes have been doing since they teamed up with

Popes have been vying for political as well as religious power ever since they teamed up with the Roman Emperor Constantine in 312 AD.
Read "Constantine's Sword" by James Carroll, and see the price that Jews, Muslims, "heretics", etc., have had to pay for it.

[put out]

9. Is the Pope afraid?

Could a man come between his wife and him?

No Catholic bashing intended, but, why does anyone's marriage need defense? If mine or yours breaks up, it surely will have nothing to do with the desire of another couple to unite. Unless half of the other couple is your current mate. In that case, all the religious pronouncements in the universe aren't going to address that problem.

I can't understand for the life of me why homosexual civil union, and marriage if they desire, strikes fear into anyone.

[Cannikin]

11. The ignorant fear what they cant understand....Plain and simple.

[Blue_Chill]

22. It's the fear of change

It's a conservative mind combined with old age that leads to the inability to understand that marriage, arguably societies foundation, will not be shaken by allowing gays to marry. The Pope has this laughable idea stuck in his head and thinks that granting gays rights to pursue their love interests to fruition will destroy all we know and love.

[LeahMira]

38. Yes, he's afraid...

... because no matter how he personally may think on the subject and no matter how much evidence is presented to him about people who are homosexual, the Catholic church has taken certain stands on marriage (no birth control, no abortion, no sex unless procreation is possible, etc.) and Popes have declared themselves infallible on such matters. If this Pope should make any statement that even opens the door a bit, devout, committed Catholics would have no reason to stay within the Church.

The Pope isn't afraid that a homosexual person will come between any man and his wife, or any permutation thereof. The Pope is afraid of losing authority. If he doesn't uphold the traditional teaching of the Church that has developed over the centuries, both he and the Catholic church will lose authority. Their authority rests on infallibility... always being right about morals. And flip-flop now would mean that they haven't always been right, and there goes the whole show.

I can't understand for the life of me why homosexual civil union, and marriage if they desire, strikes fear into anyone.

Neither can I personally. Catholics believe that homosexuality is sinful... actually it's acting on homosexual urges that's sinful. Permitting and affirming homosexual unions to Catholics would be sanctioning sinful actions. Even if a gay couple lived together without ever having sex, the Church would say that they are risking sin, and that would be unacceptable because they are supposed to avoid sin most diligently.

But again, the Pope does not make the rules for anyone but Catholics. No one else need be concerned one way or another with what he has to say. There are even a lot of Catholics who don't much care.

[ozymandius]

21. I never saw this coming.

Right out of the blue! Shazam!

[LeahMira]

31. Then the Pope...

... and all his priests are certainly within their rights to refuse to marry Catholics who are gay, and U.S. Catholics are more than welcome to relinquish the rights affirmed in the U.S. Constitution in favor of following the dictates of the Pope.

As for the rest of us, the Pope's thoughts are just one person's opinions on the subject and certainly have no particular bearing on anything. Like many clergy, he is best ignored... unless, of course, he happens to do something to bring a bit of peace to his corner of the world.

[Selwynn]

37. I don't think the pope should be lecturing anyone on sexual morality....

[TrogL]

69. The Pope has been sexually moral

as far as I know.

(I really just wanted post #69)

[Bertha Venation]

42. Quelle suprise.

:eyes: Why anyone listens to a thing that emanates from the Vatican or from Christ's Liquor on Earth is beyond me.

[Bertha Venation]

43. why does that happen?

I got a dupe post. :shrug:

[Blue_Chill]

47. You clicked the post button twice

I do it all the time. :D

[Bertha Venation]

48. I'm not beyond that, but actually I didn't this time...

...that's why I'm puzzled. :shrug: No matter.
:7

[KFC]

44. Newsflash: Water is wet

And I'm hearing a rumor that the Detroit Tigers suck.

[Cannikin]

52. "(no birth control, no abortion, no sex unless procreation is possible, et

These have all been ignored....but speak out against gays and its news...they hear only what they want...Justify there own sins while condemning others...sad.

[arwalden]

54. Without Queers, Who Would The Pope Hate As Much?

Obviously they "require" some sort of villain to fight against to feel that they are leading full and meaningful lives.

I guess today's society is becoming too sophisticated to be contented with fighting an invisible "devil" or with opposing a generic "evil" that one cannot see, touch, or hear.

No... they need to hate QUEERS. The villain with a face. Everyone knows SOMEONE who's an evil Queer. Everyone knows someone who just MIGHT be an evil Queer. We are different enough that it's still acceptable for them to persecute us. One of the last acceptable bastion of bigotry is heralded by the Pope.

And people wonder why I have absolutely no respect for the Pope and all he bigotry and petty hatred that he his kind represent. Ha! "Why" indeed!

It makes me want to vomit!

-- Allen

[JesusNoRepublican]

57. Popes affect the lives of NON-Catholics

Leahmera is mistaken when she says above,"the Pope does not make the rules for anyone but Catholics. No one else need be concerned one way or another with what he has to say."

Gays almost had a tremendous breakthrough in Connecticut this year (like the one in Mass. next door). But a petition signed by 70,000 Catholics at the instigation of the hierarchy gave the public servants who wanted to recognize the equal rights of gay NON-Catholics to enter into Civil Marriage contracts cold feet. The same is happening to NON-Catholics in many parts of the world regarding birth-control, abortion, and gay marriage.

[JVS]

64. You bet, the Church plays for keeps and acting like they don't flex...

muscles politically is either naive or incredibly dishonest

[DemBones DemBones]

60. Pope John Paul II hates no one. He respects you as he respects

every human being as a unique creation of God. If you could meet him, you'd see how he respects and loves everyone. Like many others, you are confusing the Pope's statements against sin with the statements of people who hate the sinners as much as the sin, people like Fred Phelps, the so-called "Christian minister" who preaches "God Hates Fags."

The Pope does not hate homosexuals, nor would he ever claim that God does. He believes that homosexual persons should be respected as any persons should be -- all equal in the eyes of the Lord. (And when I say what the Pope believes, I am telling you what the Roman Catholic Church teaches, and taught long before this Pope came to Rome.)

The Church and the Pope oppose sin of any sort. So do most people, sociopaths excepted, thought they may disagree about what acts are sinful and about whether to even use the word "sin." You may not use the word "sin" but no doubt there are acts that you consider wrong. It is often pointed out here at DU that it is not necessary to be religious to have a sense of morality and that is quite true. It should be obvious that opposing, or even hating, sin is not the same as hating the sinner.

It should also be obvious that, like heterosexuals, homosexuals can and do commit sins, some of them sexual. The Pope opposes all sex outside marriage as sinful. That's what Catholic teaching is. You will hear him condemn divorce (often caused by sex outside the marriage) and anything else that harms families. He opposes heterosexual sex outside marriage every bit as much as he opposes homosexual sex outside marriage.

He opposes same-sex marriage because the Church teaches that marriage is a sacred union between a man and a woman, with a purpose to have and raise children. Marriage is actually one of the seven sacraments in the Catholic Church, so respect for it goes way back to the Church's early days.

Of course the Catch 22 for homosexuals is that they can't marry so they can never have sex without committing a sin, according to Catholic Church teaching. So what do gay Catholics do? Some leave the Church, some stay. There are gay couples in my parish. They are like umarried straight couples. They come to Mass together and take Holy Communion together. They're not outcasts and I don't think anyone who knows them at all thinks they're "just roommates." But who cares? I know that when they have sex, they should go to Confession before receiving Communion, just like any heterosexual who has sex outside marriage should (or anyone committing any sin.) But it's none of my business, or anyone else's, whether or not people go to confession when they should. I'm responsible for only one person's conduct -- mine.

Truly, you shouldn't waste time worrying about Catholics being out to get you. Fred Phelps and his ilk are the ones who mean you harm.

Peace. :hippie:

[davidinalameda]

62. in all due respect--bullcrap

who gets more press--the Pope or Fred Phelps

who is more influential--the Pope or Fred Phelps

I for one am tired of hearing--love the sinner but hate the sin

Guess what--what I am is NOT a sinner and what I do is NOT a sin!

[arwalden]

63. What Total Bullshit!

One would think that if the sacrament of marriage between a man and a woman were so damned important to him then he would spend more time and effort on trying to prevent divorce and infidelity than by trying to make Queers nothing more than 2nd class citizens.

Is he suggesting that Queers are diluting the commitment Catholics have to their OWN marriages? Is it because of Queers that hetero-marriages are less stable and more than 50% failures? What disjointed logic... I fail to see the connection.

Will it help prevent infidelity and pre-marital sex by preventing Queers from having equal benefits and equal protection under the law? Obviously, I'm missing something because I truly can't make the same connection that the Pope and Catholics apparently make.

The Catholic church and the Pope are not naive. Certainly they know the political power they weild... yet they use it carelessly and frivolously. I don't hear the Pope supporting any constitutional amendments against divorce, or constitutional amendments against infidelity or shacking-up. NO... he's supporting LAWS against Queers.

You know it. I know it. The world knows it. You may try to frame it as someone who merely "cares" about people... but that's not, repeat NOT! the net effect. The cruel rhetoric that spews forth from the Pope only serves to reinforce those who believe and follow Phelps and the like. It serves to bolster public opinion AGAINST treating Queers equally. It serves to shape policy and law.

Look again. Look closely. His words and actions are NOT as benign as you present them and as you would have me believe. He's a dangerous man.

Okay... so they (you?) believe it's a "sacred union". That's fine. Continue to believe that and continue to honor it as such. Now... explain to me how my happiness and equal rights interferes with their rights to keep their marriage "sacred".

Are Catholics and the Pope so INSECURE that the things they consider to be holy and sacred can only be that way unless EVERYONE obeys their directives---catholics and non-catholic alike? What nonsense! What bullshit!

So what! So it's sacred! How does that make it okay to LIMIT and RESTRICT my rights, and to OPPOSE and FIGHT my attempts to be treated fairly?

Are Catholics and the Pope that PARANOID? Or are they simply that ARROGANT that they feel entitled to run roughshod over everyone?

This is bigotry and hypocrisy in it's purest form. This is not "love of mankind". This is not how someone who (as you say) truly "respects" Queers would act. You characterize the man and the church in one way... but everything they do or say is the EXACT OPPOSITE! This "love the sinner but hate the sin" bullshit must stop!

The thought that millions worship this petty man just sickens me. It makes me want to vomit.

-- Allen

Edit: Clarity/grammar

[IndianaGreen]

56. For the head honcho of a celibate priesthood

His Holiness has not much of a leg to stand on when it comes to preaching about matrimony.

After all, if marriage was so sacrosanct, why is the Vatican opposed to married couples choosing when and how many children to have?

At least the Pope doesn't go around like the Protestant fundies claiming that Jay-Zeus founded the institution of marriage, which would make everyone a descendant of bastards.

Karl Marx was so right about religion being the opiate of the masses.

[Breezy du Nord]

58. It makes sense, I guess

I mean, I personally don't agree with the pope's stance on gay marriage, but this is a man who's life is dedicated to honoring some ancient piece of paper, you can't expect him to take any different stance on it?

[DemBones DemBones]

61. Islamic Leaders Outlaw Condoms in Somalia --

a thread that I posted, with link to BBC article, in GD a couple of days ago. I just kicked it up to the front page so DUers can explain why it's OK for Islamic leaders to ban condoms in an entire country but not OK for Pope John Paul II to uphold a traditional view of marriage or other teachings of the Catholic Church. He will not be outlawing condoms anywhere as he has no governmental authority. He can only urge Catholics not to use artificial means of contraception.

Muslims also oppose abortion and many Muslim societies restrict their women a great deal. It's a whole new field for those who love a good old-fashioned session of bashing someone else's religion.

Then again, we could all respect each other and live in peace. :hippie:

I'd vote for the peace and respect option. Anyone with me?

[arwalden]

66. :-)

Never mind.

[Pontus]

75. Please re-post BBC article.

And by the way, good point!

[DemBones DemBones]

67. My mistake: I thought that some of you believed that Pope JP II

actually hates you because you are gay and that if I explained more about Catholic teaching about marriage and sexuality (since posts indicate a vast misunderstanding of it), you might feel less hated, though still disagreeing with Church policy.

Obviously, I was naive to think I could bring any peace to this discussion because peace is the enemy.

Carry on.

[Hippo_Tron]

71. Catholics vote Dem anyway and Dick Chenney "supports" gay marriage...

So I'm not too concerned.

[sujan]

72. Pope is an idiot

[Pontus]

74. Now that's a tolerant attitude that...

is bound to pull in Catholic voters.

[DemBones DemBones]

76. Yes, and I wish people would remember that these are

public forums, read by people looking for talking points against Dems.

Karl Rove has been working for years on convincing Catholics to switch over and vote for GWB.

Alienating Catholics is alienating a big part of the Democratic base.

I understand that some are frustrated with the Pope and the Church and think that John Paul II should just wake up on January 1 and say, "OK, we're throwing out 2000 years of Catholic Christian tradition. Birth control and abortion are allowed, divorce is allowed, gay marriage is allowed, married priests are allowed, no more of those pesky rules about right and wrong, just do what you want to do."

That's not going to happen and there are a lot of us who, as one DUer has said before, "will be Catholic long after I've stopped being a Dem." The attacks on our Church and our Pope are hurtful to us, not because people disagree with the Church or Pope but because they do so with such hate and vitriol. It makes us want to leave DU and leave the party and maybe move to a country that doesn't have the strong tradition of anti-Catholicism that the US does. Read your history -- Catholics have been victims of what are now called "hate crimes." The Klan was as anti-Catholic as it was anti-black. There are plenty of places still where Catholics are not welcome, employers who won't hire Catholics. Many Catholics are afraid to speak up for their religion at DU.

I wish peace and sanity could prevail here. We're all supposed to be part of the same Democratic Party. What if we acted like it?

[LibertyBe11e]

82. Read your history -- Catholics have been victims of what are now called "

I suggest in turn, that you read YOUR history ie of the Catholic Church. They have been the PERPETRATORS of "hate crimes" as often, if not more so than they have been the victims throughout the ages. The Catholic church has changed her views very little, if at all, over the centuries. So excuse some of us for not liking or trusting the papacy. Their reputation precedes themselves. And YES the VATICAN DOES try to influence OUR government--just as the religious right wing zealots here do. So yeah, some us are a little testy about "what the Pope says."

[FDRrocks]

77. Do unto others

The Pope is being real tolerant, himself.

[Pontus]

79. He is not intolerant!

His duty is to uphold what the Bible says is the proper way for living. He hs no legal authority, only the authority of his message and the level people believe it is consistent with the Bible. You may not like what he says, but his job isn't to say what pleases everyone.

[sujan]

80. If Catholics agree with this guy

To hell with them.....

It's about human rights and this 'pope' doesn't respect it.

[Blue_Chill]

88. Human rights?

I'm sorry to inform you of this but there has been no greater supporter of human rights then the Catholic church. Sadly some seek to redefine the term to include modern civil liberties.

Just as a reminder while you are here fighting for more rights, the church is in millions of places around the world fighting for the ones you already take for granted.

[Blue_Chill]

87. Another well thought out and well written post .

cheers

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

83. The pope is an irrelevent anachronism.

He's trying to preserve a medieval form of religion long after it has become little more than a moneymaking machine. His most loyal followers now inhabit the least educated parts of the third world. His destructive thoughts on homosexuality, birth control, sex, went out of date in the industrialized world with hoop skirts and buggies.

BTW - I'm an ex-Catholic, married to a devout Catholic who thinks the same way that I do about the Pope.

[arwalden]

92. The Earth Is Round. The Earth Orbits Around The Sun.

These simple truths were vehemently denied and decried by the Catholic church for centuries. "Heretics! Sinners!" People were imprisoned for such heresy.

Ah... but thoughtful posts from people like you give me hope that the myopia and paranoia suffered by the Catholic church will give way to fairness and common decency.

And, as I mentioned in another post earlier in this thread... considering the fact that the Catholic church FINALLY came around and admitted that Galileo and Copernicus were right (even if it WAS 500 years late) there just might be hope that one day... 500 years from now... they might change their stagnant and outdated ways again.

-- Allen

[noonwitch]

90. He's the Pope, what do we expect?

He's not in charge of our nation's policies.

I disagree with the Pope on many issues, as I am not a catholic, but I still respect him as a better pope than most have been, historically speaking. He travelled the world when he could, he sought peaceful resolutions to world problems and he helped bring an end to communism.

Of course the Pope is going to be anti-abortion, opposed to gay marriage and conservative in general. If he wasn't, he wouldn't be the Pope.